Passed Amendments to the Executive Affairs Act 2023

The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has passed their respective house's legislative process.

VOTING ON THE CURRENT MOTION

  • Aye

    Votes: 6 85.7%

  • Ney

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Abstein

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
JaxsonWinter

JaxsonWinter

The Greater Empire of Astrodom
Executive Cabinet
Oct 3, 2022
244
21
Awards
2
Coat_of_Arms_UDS.png


A MOTION

To amend the Executive Affairs Act
Introduced into the Council of State of the Union of Democratic States on the 24th of July, 2023, by @Glaciosia
As follows:
​
WHEREAS it is harmful to the clarity of the law to retain unnecessary and unused provisions,
BE IT ENACTED by the Council of State of the Union of Democratic States:

Section 1. Title & Definitions
1. This act may be referred to as “Amendments to the Executive Affairs Act 2023”
2. For the purposes of Section 2, the “Act” refers to UL-034 The Executive Affairs Act.

Section 2. Amendments
1. Section 3, Clauses 2 and 3 of the Act shall be struck out.
2. Section 3, Clause 1 shall be moved to Section 2, Section 3 removed and the following Sections renumbered appropriately.
3. Section 4, Clause 2 shall be struck out and the following Clauses renumbered appropriately.
4. Section 6, Clause 2 shall be struck out.
 
As the original author of the bill, and someone very familiar with Executive processes... I can be confident some of the provisions in this act were unnecessary and a little silly. I hope to rectify my mistake.
 
I am curious as to why the author of this bill would like to get rid of Ministerial Orders?
 
Twofold: I haven't seen them see much use, and the current formulation is constitutionally problematic, as executive orders are reserved just to the president.

I don't think there would be anything stopping someone from publishing orders or policies as a minister, as an organic expression of their powers though.
 
Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution states, "The President shall have the following powers, subject to regulation by law..." Emphasis mine. I feel like it really isn't constitutionally problematic. The Council of State holds the legislative power of the Union and may delegate that legislative power as they wish. The Constitution grants the power to the legislature to overturn Executive Orders (Art. II, Sec. 12) and also states "...similar powers shall exist in regards to any form of delegated or secondary legislation." (Ibid.)
 
I agree that the legislature is given a very broad set of powers -- that they can, in effect do anything which the constitution does not say they can't. The law could, quite easily, explicitly empower ministers to issue ministerial orders, separate from the existence of executive orders. However, the legislature cannot give out the powers reserved for the president. The cited provisions allow the legislature to issue rules for how the president makes executive orders, or under what circumstances they can do that. As an example, the power to regulate presidential authority does not give the legislature the ability to empower the minister of culture to veto legislation.

It's not unconstitutional to have ministerial orders its just that the way the EEA was written for this section was iffy at best, and since it seemed unnecessary I chose to remove it in favor of a (totally possible) more legally sound version
 
That's fair. I will support this proposal.
 
This seems like a pretty good amendment, I endorse it and support it.
 
I find the proposal to be sound and indeed of benefit to the Union. It has my complete support.
 
I move that we vote on this proposal.
 
ISecond the motion to end discussions and move on to voting.
 
Motion has been seconded, Debate is closed and voting will commence shortly!
 
Seeing as the Constitution states that " 6. Votes of the Council shall only be considered binding if three or more Councilors vote." and the Rules of Procedure do not put a maximum limit on the time a bill can be debated, I move to reopen voting to allow for more councilors to vote.
 
It being 24 hours since voting reopened, and a quorum established, voting shall conclude. with 6 in favor and one abstention the motion passes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back